House Bill 1777 Judicial Compensation. Raises the compensation of trial court judges from $90,000 to $121,122; appellate court judges from $110,000 to $139,951; and supreme court justices from $115,000 to $143,195 (plus benefits and whatnot, I presume). Jacks up small claims filing fees an additional $15 and plenary filing fees an additional $22 to pay for it. Passed second reading.

Should be interesting to see if this one gets hung up again this year. Seems like the judges have been stiffed on a raise every year for the past decade. This should’ve been passed back in the late 90s when the State was flush with cash. It’s kind of hard to tell the average Joe that a judge can’t make it on $90k when teachers are being fired and Medicaid benefits are getting axed.

House Bill 1063

Eminent domain for commercial uses. Provides that the state or a political subdivision may not use eminent domain to acquire property for public use to transfer any interest in property to another person for commercial use unless the property owner has rejected an offer from the state or a political subdivision that is equal to at least the
higher of 150% of the property’s assessed value or the average of 3 appraisals of the property.

Passed the House 67 – 29.

If I’m not mistaken, this was the subject of a case the Supreme Court recently heard entitled Kelo v. New London. The Indiana Law Blog has good coverage of the case.

This bill seems to be a decent solution. I would suggest strengthening the bill a bit by requiring not only that the property owner have rejected an offer of 150% but also require that if eminent domain is exercised that the political subdivision actually have to pay at least 150%. (Maybe the eminent domain statute requires that the compensation be at least as much as the highest offer or somesuch. I have not read that statute in quite awhile.)

House Bill 1034 Daylight Savings Time. Repeals IC 1-1-8.1 which is the chapter of the Indiana Code that exempts Indiana from observation of “advanced time”. It is effective upon passage, so, if the bill were to pass after the first Sunday in April, Hoosiers would have to switch their clocks as soon as the Governor signed the bill.

This bill passed Second reading with only Representative Van Haaften’s Amendment having been added to the bill by a vote of 50 to 47. That bill requires the Dept. of Transportation to put up time zone signs on state highways, interstate highways, and the toll road when you cross from Central to Eastern Time. (I wonder if U.S. highways that aren’t Interstates are included in the provision.)

Amendments that failed were:

Rep. Crooks’ Amendment to urge Gov. Daniels to petition the U.S. Dept. of Transportation to put most of Indiana in the Central Time Zone (failed 46-48);

Rep. Crooks’ Amendment to have a referendum on whether most of Indiana should be put in the Central Time Zone (failed 47-51);

Rep. Grubb’s Amendment to support any county executive seeking to change the county’s time zone (failed 43-54);

Rep. Grubb’s Amendment for a referendum on the question of whether most counties should be put in the Central Time Zone (failed 44-53); and

Rep. Grubb’s Amendment that would keep Standard Time in place for those counties in the Eastern Time Zone except the counties around Cincinnati and Louisville (failed 44-53).

I had a couple of prior entries that looked at the nuts & bolts of the laws governing Daylight Savings Time here and here.

Joint Resolution 0007 The anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment passed the Senate 42 to 8. I think it’s an inappropriate mucking about with the Constitution, but if they have to pass it, the Senate made a somewhat sensible amendment. They changed:

Neither this Constitution nor any other Indiana law may be construed to confer marital status or any legal incidents of marriage upon unmarried couples or groups.

to

This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

So, instead of prohibiting the grant of legal incidents of marriage to same-sex couples, it simply prohibits construing statutes to require such a grant. An interesting question would be whether a law specifically granting an incident of marriage to a same-sex couple would be enforceable. For example, a statute saying, “Hospitals shall allow same-sex partners the same visitation rights as married couples enjoy.” Hospital disobeys the law. Then defends, saying that, per the Indiana Constitution, the statute can’t be construed to require them to to confer a legal incident of marriage on unmarried couples. Seems like we might be opening a can of worms with that “legal incidents of marriage” language.

Senate Bill 0360 – Prohibits an insurer (or the state employee insurance plan) from covering surgical treatment of morbid obesity of someone less than 19 years old unless 2 physicians determine that the procedure is necessary to save the person’s life. Passed Second Reading in the Senate.

Senate Bill 0218

Provides that evidence of the failure to comply with the laws concerning safety belt use may be admitted as evidence in a civil action to reduce damages for injury to a person, and may limit the liability of an insurer. Provides that the defendant has the burden of establishing that use of a safety belt would have reduced damages.

An amendment was defeated that would’ve allowed admission only where there was a signed confession or a conviction of failing to wear a seat belt. The bill passed second reading and will presumably be voted on by the Senate in the near future. I think I support this measure. On the one hand, you take your victim as you find them, but, on the other hand, anti-seat belt activists usually cite personal choice and freedom as the reasons they shouldn’t be burdened. With freedom comes responsibility, so I figure it makes sense to make people exercising their freedom bear the additional loss they sustain as a result of that exercise of freedom.

Mary Beth Schneider has an article for the Indianapolis Star entitled 1,500 bills big and small vie for attention. She mentions that most bills will slip by without any kind of media attention. I don’t know that I’d call myself “media attention” but even this blog, with its focus on legislation and sometimes shotgun approach to coverage missed most of the ones she points out. The only one I paid real attention to was concerning a poet laureate. (I’m pleased to say that PSoTD was actually kind enough to pick up on that one.)

The other bills mentioned in Ms. Schneider’s article:
SB 301 and HB 1171 — Cheerleading safety;
HB 1238 and HB 1106 — Car headlights
HB 1091 — Anti-panhandling
SB 103 — Attendance officers in schools
HB 1474 — Yearbook photographers
HB 1276 — Animal treatment by chiropractors
HB 1365 and SB 208 — Pest control and groundhogs.

One thing it would be interesting to know is how much the volume of bills considered by the legislature changes with the technological ability to generate the volume. I know anectdotally from long-time LSA employees that the number of bills considered by the General Assembly has increased with computer technology. Cause and effect is a bit hard to determine, but how do you suppose the legislature would deal with 1,500 bills if each one had to be typed (or, going way back, hand-written maybe) along with each amendment, committee report, etc., etc. Oddly, our ability to process text may be increasing how regulated we are as a society.

Tammy Webber, for the Indianapolis Star, has an article entitled Bill, EPA may help with sewage woes.

She reports that the Senate will consider Senate Bill 620,
which would let communities change water-quality standards during storms — meaning waterways would not have to be clean enough for human contact for up to four days. That would protect the state from lawsuits while lawmakers work to solve the problem. The goal, apparently, is to give communities some leeway as they work on improving their water treatment facilities so they handle overflows better even if they can’t treat every drop of water in an overflow.

Theodore Kim, for the Indianapolis Star, has an article entitled Speed limit debate is revving up in Indiana

Basic premise – opponents say higher speeds equals more accidents, injuries, and deaths. Proponents say that folks are already mostly driving 70, why not legalize it. I’m with the proponents, favoring higher speed limits, but I think the opponents are probably correct and the proponents are being disingenuous. There will be more injuries, accidents and deaths, and people will drive faster than they did before if the speed limit was increased. But, nevertheless, the odds of being in an interstate accident are relatively low, and I want to drive faster. Probably immature of me, but there you have it.

The Journal & Courier has an article on Indiana’s Do Not Call list being put under attack. Basically, a banking organization is seeking a ruling from the FCC saying the recently passed, and less restrictive, federal do not call list preempts Indiana’s older, more effective, Do Not Call List. This report is almost exclusively of the “man-on-the-street” variety. There is an interview with banker, Gary Neal, who apparently thinks that Banks should be able to call you when your CD is about to expire so they can contact you with exciting new CD opportunities. Meanwhile, Edward Viney thinks that Do Not Call lists generally are illegal because they put telemarketers out of work and do not stop political telephone calls.

I’d like to pat myself on the back because I saw this coming. When the federal law was coming down the pike, I wrote to Representative Buyer and asked him to make sure that state law wasn’t preempted. Guess my little letter may not have done much good. Although, according to this FCC website more restrictive state laws are authorized. Perhaps the banks’ argument is a bit more nuanced. I mentioned this previously here. (Though, reviewing that link, apparently I haven’t completely weeded out all online poker comment spam.)